tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC October 12, 2015 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
the book is "the relevance of religion." the author, former senator jack danforth. you make me miss working with you when we have these discussions. chris hayes is up next. bernie doesn't love hillary. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews here in las vegas where a crap shoot for the democratic presidential nomination begins for real. it already looks like tomorrow night's big first debate set for here in las vegas is going to be a hot one. not waiting for the clock to start. bernie sanders is tearing into hillary clinton for a lack of commitment, he says, to progressive opinions. hitting her on environment, trade, and last but hardly least, her 2002 vote to authorize the iraq war. what will hillary say in return?
will she counterpunch the fiery vermonter and question his socialist ideology? can she afford not to? what about the guy not here, joe biden? kasie hunt is msnbc's political reporter outside the site of tomorrow night's debate. what do you hear on the strip? >> reporter: where it is already approaching, i have to say 100 degrees or so. there is a widespread acknowledgement among the many activists, politician times wandering the halls at the wynn where the debate will take place that hillary clinton is walking on a tight rope here. she has to be very careful how she approaches all those things. she has a lot to lose, unlike bernie sanders and martin o'malley who have a chance to step up and stand out. the thing i keep hearing about here is joe biden. everybody wants to know what i'm hearing about whether joe biden is going to run. what we are hearing in general from his camp from people close to him. we are also hearing from clinton
allies in the halls overarchingly it doesn't matter. they are focused trying to convince people here what biden does is going to be irrelevant to her future. most folks know that's not the case though. >> isn't that a change? the word was getting out about a week or so ago from somewhere that if biden ran it would hurt hillary clinton and he would be blamed for it. he would be a spoiler. is that no longer the argument? >> i think privately that is something people here are concerned about, this idea if he does get in he is going to pull directly from her support and if it ends up being this protracted democratic fight -- i will say, there are people gearing up for that possibility on her side, whether they are outside independent groups not necessarily the campaign itself. there will be people ready to stand. in i think right now, as they go into this debate, they are trying to portray her in a position of strength and say what matters is the action she is taking what she says on that stage instead of what joe biden is doing in delaware.
>> thank you very much, kasie hunt. see you later. >>ing from wall street to the environment and matters on war and peace. bernie sanders is sharpening his attack ahead of tomorrow tonight's showdown. senator sanders attacked hillary clinton for her recent shift left. here is sanders on nbc's "meet the press." >> the real most important question is who is prepared to mobilize the american people to stand up to these very powerful and wealthy special interests? whose track record the last 25 years has been to say to wall street, you know what? we are going to have to break up the large financial institution, from day one i opposed the keystone pipeline. tpp. i believe our trade policies going way back when. i think they have been a disaster for the american worker. people will have to contrast my consistency and my willingness to stand up to wall street and big corporations with the secretary.
>> that's what politicians do. they draw distinction between themselves and the opponent. sanders doubled down on those attacks today in an interview with nbc's andrea mitchell. >> what people have to look at is our track record. i did not come out against the tpp yesterday. i came out very early on in this process. i have been against trade agreements that have hurt american workers and the environment from way back. the question is, when so few have so much in this country today, which candidate is better prepared to stand up to the billionaire class and fight for working families? i will let the voters make that decision. i'm confident if they study my record, they will respect what i have done. >> over the weekend, senator sanders campaign drew attention to hillary clinton's vote for the iraq war authorization by highlighting a floor speech he, sanders, gave back in 2002. he warned of the dangers of a
u.s. invasion in the middle east. i'm joined by john ralston and susan page and "the washington post" columnist eugene robinson. let me ask but this thing here. politicians draw distinctions. bernie sanders is doing it. do you expect hillary clinton to do that tomorrow night here to say, look, you're a socialist, i'm a moderate. we disagree on fundamental things or is she going to meet to him? >> that will be interesting to watch. >> what it's answer? is she going to lean to him or take him on? >> i think she can take him on but you have to be careful. if you are the front-runner, i have to look above it all. she has to show humor, but she's got that trust issue she's got to worry about which is why sanders is doing that in addition to having the double
whammy saying i'm the purist here. i'm the person the base of the democratic party can trust because i've been consistent. you have not, hillary. >> nobody cares about bernie sanders' hair or whether he's smiling or warm, cool or somewhere in the middle. he is a socialist guy who is going to sell his arguments. free college tuition. bigger social security checks. he's selling social restriction of wealth which is a popular idea with people at the bottom and near the bottom and somewhere near the middle. hillary clinton has to be nice and sweet. isn't that a lot of bars to jump over, be sweet, nice, take on your opponent, defend yourself and find your position all in one night? >> yes. one advantage she has over bernie sanders. there were 25 democratic debates in 2008. she had a lot of experience on the debate stage and he's had zero. i think it's hard for hillary clinton to go after bernie sanders in a tough way.
she is going to need the enthusiastic support of the people who lined up behind bernie sanders. she does not go after him as a socialist or on some of these other issues. the one area he might be able to make the opening for her would be to talk about herself as a doer who can achieve things, saying it might be hard for him to do that. this is a tough thing for her to handle tomorrow night. >> i think she is afraid to take him on because of his youthful and vigorous consistency out there. if she were to say, i'm not a socialist and the moderator were to ask, why aren't you? what is the difference between a moderate democrat or socialist? i don't know if she wants to draw distinctions the way he is willing to draw them with her. >> she thinks at some point she is going to need bernie sanders' supporters. she will win the nomination and need those people to back her in a general election.
in that sense she can't go after him. she is ahead. he is leading in new hampshire, but everywhere else she is ahead. she's got the super tuesday fire wall that looks strong. she doesn't necessarily have to go after him that vigorously on substance. she is really knowledgeable. >> you say engage in defense? >> they are going to talk about issues. they'll talk about issues and policies. she is very knowledgeable about issues and policies. she will emphasize the positions she is taking now versus positions she might have taken in past years. she'll say that was then, this is now. and try to keep it forward looking as opposed to looking in the rear view mirror. >> i've grown up with the idea of richard nixon. he debated kennedy in the great debates. tried to be his friend and said i agree with you on principle.
by the end of the debate it was pathetic. senator sanders is talking up his socialist beliefs. >> look, when one of you republican colleagues gets on this show, you say are you a capitalist? have you referred to them as capitalists? >> are you a capitalist? >> no. i'm a democratic socialist. >> he's running to be commander in chief. he talked openly about why he believed he should have been excused from military service in the vietnam war on moral grounds. >> this is over 50 years ago when i was a young guy. he applied for conscientious objective pass. >> his support for an nra-backed law in 2005. more on "meet the press." >> one of the things some of your democratic opponents might
hit you on is the vote did you to protect manufacturers from liability. why single just them out for full protection on liability? >> that was a complicated vote. i'm pilling to see changes necessary that provision. >> i'm going to go back to susan. there is a st. bernard aspect to this guy. nobody wants to hit him. chuck was gingerly going after what most people would consider vulnerabilities. you claimed co status, now you want to be commander in chief and run the u.s. military and send men and women into battle? you declared yourself morally opposed to war. not vietnam, war. i remember ted sorenson was knocked out of contention to be cia director over this issue because he was a c.o. it is a serious moral decision to say you're c.o. then later say i want to run the u.s. military. >> i don't think that is his biggest vulnerability thinking
about the democratic presidential nomination. the argument, the tougher argument on war is the one being made against hillary clinton. every other person on that stage was against the invasion of iraq. she voted famously in 2002 to authorize military action there. it seems that is a bigger vulnerability. on guns, that is the one issue which sanders is out of step with his party now and with the moment in the country. that is an air why where i think he might be subject to some criticism and attack tomorrow night. >> i think 2002 vote still a problem for the former secretary of state. john ralston, have you been hearing this talk of biden out here? >> there is a lot of talk of biden out here. the draft biden folks have staffed up here. they've gotten some former party chairman and former elected officials to staff it here. the greatest thing would be if they lowered biden on to the stage like a vegas show with a light show and suddenly he appears.
how vegas would that be? >> you think biden will lower himself on the stage any time this fall? >> i doubt it. i doubted all along in the end he is going to run. i don't think he will appear as if by magic. we'll see. anything can happen in vegas. >> i think he will watch tomorrow night with great interest and decide around midnight tomorrow night whether there is an opening. thank you, john ralston. great to be out here in the city of great superficiality, but i'm not going to say that in this great town. thank you. we'll have pregame coverage tomorrow night live from las vegas starting at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow night eastern. after the debate at 11:00 eastern we'll have all the reaction and announcements from the spin room again. bill clinton will be out here come. he is already out here. >> another big break for hillary clinton after republican staffer on the benghazi committee says the investigation by that
committee is what a lot of democrats suspected all along. just a partisan witch-hunt against the former secretary of state. this is good news for hillary. >> as house republicans scramble to fill their leadership vacuum, republican voters still prefer donald trump. the rejection the republican establishment is having on both fronts, don't you see? >> on the eve of the first democratic debate, is it too late for joe biden to make his move? >> finally, let me finish with joe biden and way think he should do. this is "hardball" the place for politics live from las vegas.
welcome back to "hardball" where there is more evidence the focus of the republican-led benghazi committee is to go after hillary clinton. first came this admission from kevin mccarthy. >> everybody thought hillary clinton was unbeatable, right? but we put together a benghazi special committee, a select committee. what are her numbers today? her numbers are dropping. why? because she is untrustable. no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought. >> don't you love going to the tape? over the weekend, a former republican staff from the committee who had been fired said the investigation changed its focus from spring, this
spring from the attack itself in benghazi and turned into a, quote, partisan investigation of secretary clinton. >> hillary clinton has a lot of explaining to do. we did not need to shift resources to hyperfocus on hillary clinton. we didn't need to drop the investigation on different agencies, different organizations and different individuals. >> do you think that the results are the committee, based on what you saw, will be fair, comprehensive, thorough, professional, honest? >> no. it's not possible. the victims' families will not get the true. >> chairman gowdy pushed hard against that staffer bradley podliska. >> it's a damn lie. that's not a word i often use but rarely is it so easily proven. he was a lousy employee. that was evidenced by the fact he mishandled classified information and wouldn't do what his supervisors instructed him to do.
he never said a word about hillary clinton until it looked like he was going to lose his mediation and then he went on another television show and made this allegation. he never said a word about it in june, july, august, september or october, despite having ample opportunity to do so. >> this morning, "the new york times" backed up podliska's main claims. internal documents reviewed by "the new york times" showed the focus has shifted from the circumstances surrounding the benghazi attack to the politically-charged views of mrs. clinton's use of a private e-mail server. eric clifton, thank you for joining us. is it possible both the fact is that this guy is telling the truth, this former staffer about the purposes of that committee being partisan?
and trey gowdy right about him not being a particularly good employee, could that be true? >> certainly. every whistle blower has issues that come to you and you have to evaluate how credible are they? what is the evidence and you compare that evidence they presented you with to the documents and do you interviews with other people. you try to corroborate what they said. we took his comments and took them skeptically at first. the other evidence we reviewed which included committee documents showed, for example, in december of 2014, the committee republicans proposed nine hearings this year that were going to focus on eyewitness accounts of the attacks. why did this happen, why are we here, what have we done to correct the situation? what do we still need to do? these were supposed to be scheduled between january and october. not a single one has been held. there were other documents that showed they were going to interview a dozen d.o.d. and intelligence officials. that was in february a letter
shared with the democrats about plans for interviews. none of those folks have been interviewed. since then in june, another letter came out with 18 state department officials that they wanted to add to be interviewed. including two clinton speech writers. there is another evidence which seems to back up some of his assertions. even though he has credibility issues. he was fired for some reasons that appeared there are issues with his employment, for sure. >> thank you so much. adam smith of washington state is a member of the benghazi committee. gentlemen, we are looking at facts that may seem in contradiction they may not be. congressman smith do you believe this is a good staffer for that committee or don't you know? do you believe you have evidence to corroborate what he said to nail hillary on something to do with e-mails, but not focus on what happened to benghazi?
>> i have no idea if he was a good staffer. he worked for the majority. what he says is backed up by facts. this committee has been around for well over a year now. i think it's one of the longest lasting congressional investigation committees and has done virtually nothing. they interview anybody who has anything to do with hillary. this is clear it is a partisan witch-hunt. this staffer confirmed what i thought from the beginning and has proven to be the case from the committee's actions. >> what do you think of this putting it all together? i like to see complexity in things. life is complex. a lot of times whistle blowers do have problems with their bosses. that's why they turn on them. they can turn on them with truth. that's the best weapon to use against a boss you didn't like or felt screwed by. get them with the facts. does this guy have the facts,
podliska? >> the committee had a terrible week. it's been rough on the staff dealing with these stories. the facts are the facts. this is not the most expensive congressional investigation. senator feinstein's investigation of abu ghraib lasted eight years. four dead americans. these are serious charges. if the committee doesn't get to the bottom of this, it would be a great shame. i think they want to get to the bottom of it. >> bottom? bottom of what? >> they just started getting the e-mails from ambassador chris stevens. that's important in all this. they are looking at the e-mails and the data. it took eight investigations in congress for us to find out hillary had this private server. this committee unearthed a lot of questions. look at the information and have a report. >> is this the bottom of what happened in benghazi or a fishing expedition to look for something bad on hillary clinton with regard to her e-mails? >> the latter, the republicans have a big problem on their
hands. >> they do. >> what is it, a trolling operation on e-mail or a look at what happened in a horrible situation in libya? >> it's clearly a trolling operation. ken mccarthy admitted as much. this committee has taken a long time to do virtually nothing. other committees lasted longer, but they were doing something. >> "the new york times" had nine scheduled hearings and they haven't done anything. >> that's not true. >> hold on for a second. finish mr. smith then matt. >> another thing they have done interviews with witnesses in a partisan way. they have not told democrats about those interviews. when those interviews didn't reveal the facts the way republicans wanted them to, they buried them until we accidentally found out about
them. >> the cheryl mills testimony. >> not just cheryl mills. other witnesses, as well. >> last word. this is always the case when congress does investigations. if president obama wants to have a tower commission, have a bipartisan commission -- >> we did -- >> put a time limit on it -- >> they did. >> they had a bipartisan commission. >> hillary clinton will testify in ten days and we'll see footage of what the members of the committee have and don't have and what hillary clinton says in her defense. i hope it's useful to us all. thank you. >> thank you. up next, up close and personal look at former apple chief steve jobs. dave's been working on his game,
why pause a spontaneous moment to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or any symptoms of an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a free 30-tablet trial.
welcome back to "hardball." we'll be back to biden and trump and a search for paul ryan after this the feature film "steve jobs" is about the man who became synonymous with the company he created apple. anybody who has owned an apple device was his ingenious to make personal computing personal. 45 years after apple was founded, it is today the biggest company in the world. the movie is less about the accomplishments as it is about the person. in "the voice" "this is a swift and searing attempt to pull back the curtain on jobs and in the process investigate the relationship between the myth and the man." here's a clip. >> last year apple lost $1 billion. i don't even know how that's possible. we were less than 90 days from being insolvents.
the whole place has to be extreme lined. >> can you come offstage? >> leave him right there. i started with the apple 2 team because we don't make that any more. >> just acknowledge the top guys. >> have a mimosa and relax. >> you will not blow me off right now, steve. >> there are no top guys. all right? on the apple 2 team there are no top guys. they are b players. b players discourage the a players. >> well steve jobs, up close and very personal portrait of america's most celebrated tech visionary. last week, i had the chance to speak to the screenwriter aaron sorkin. seth rogen is fabulous. if he doesn't win an oscar, i will be amazed. >> he's fantastic. >> let's talk about the character steve jobs. i watched yesterday.
incompatible that he wanted to create a product, macintosh, incompatible with other systems. he was incompatible. >> it was important he had a closed end-to-end system incompatible with anything else. that's not much different k than the way, if i want, if i write a script i wouldn't want anyone, you know, adding something on to it or subtracting it or putting themselves into a character like it was a video game. i'm able to understand that part of him. >> about the ability to complete everything. what is the back story as we say in literature like hemingway the back story? is the back story here in the movie his personal life and problems with his daughter and the woman he had the child with? or is it his success? what is the main story? i think they are both in it. what do you think is the prime story of this guy's inability to deal with life, his
incompatibility with other human beings, or his incredible success as a tech visionary? >> as he said, both those stories are in it. i wouldn't dare try to come up with a psychological diagnosis of someone i don't have the ability to do that. i've never met steve jobs. i did meet and spent a lot of time with people who were very close to steve, including most importantly his eldest daughter lisa you see in the movie. he denies paternity of her. that's the emotional center of the movie. his coming together with his daughter. he was a very complicated man. he was a very brilliant man. difficult at times, but it was so important to him, not just to have a successful product, not just have a product that would sell well, but a product we would have an emotional relationship with. you eluded to that in your introduction. that emotional relationship that we have with his products substituted for having an
emotional relationship with him, with the person. >> why was he afraid of having a daughter? he did have one. he was the father and he didn't seem to -- was it because he didn't want autonomy? he didn't want someone else, as you said, to be able to change what he created by being who they are? >> the daughter in the final scene of the movie asks him the very same question. why did you deny that you were my father? when we were shooting the scene and rehearsing the scene, i told the actor, michael fastbender who gives just -- he blows the doors off the place in this performance. he has the line, his answer is, i honestly don't know. i told michael that that is the most honest thing he says in this entire movie. he's not shrugging it off, not blowing it off. he says, i honestly don't know and he means it. >> i want to show you right now something that is at the very beginning of your movie. we found it from another source. it's about arthur c. clark.
in the peace corps, all we talked about arthur c. clark the "2001" movie. wait till you see arthur c. clark seeing 1974 the world we live in today. here he is "on the record." >> big difference when he grows up. wanted to wait for the year 2001, he will have in his own house not a computer as big as this, but at least a console to which he can talk to his local friendly computer and get all the information he needs in his everyday life, blanket statements, theater reservations, all the information you need living in a complex modern society. this will be in a compact form in his own house. >> right down to fandango. he saw exactly the way people in their 20s today think life has always been.
>> that's right. we wanted to -- it's a little 30-second prologue before the movie begins that arthur clark video. we just wanted to remind people that computers were these giant scary machines. you needed a big room to keep one of them in. every time hollywood wrote a story about a computer, the world always came to an end. they were always doing awful things. that's why it was important to steve when he was introducing the macintosh people see it as a friendly think. he designed it to look like a friendy face. the disk slot was meant to look like a goofy grin that was inviting and something on your desk could play. with. >> i think al jolson said genius is easy to take from three rose back. this guy is a genius and a very difficult guy, even to just chat with. i think kate winslet is fabulous as his number one there.
tell me about that. do you think in the movie -- i think she says to him, you could be nice and a genius. do you believe it's possible? >> it's a theme that keeps coming up in the movie. can you be decent and gifted at the same time? because i'm not a genius, i can't really answer that question. i like to think it's possible. but for steve, you know, you talk to everybody. people who worked for them. they all have their horror stories. but they all, to a person, will say the same thing. he made us better. no matter how difficult it may have been, he made us all better. >> thank you, aaron sorkin. a great honor to have you on the program. it's a hell of a movie, the movie "steve jobs" in select theaters now. out everywhere october 23rd.
i haven't gone after my republican opponents at all. not even at all. they've gone after me. i only go after them when they go after me. i'm a counterpuncher. they drop out of the race that. seems to be what's happening. >> the rejection of the republican establishment is happening on two fronts in this country. in the congress where the republican caucus is coming apart at the seams and on the campaign trail where donald trump continues to sit on the top of the heap. in a national poll of likely republican primary voters, trump is the front-runner with 27%. trailing second is dr. ben carson with 21%. after that there is a stark fall-off in support for the other candidates who are down in the single-digit territory. it seems to matter what he says, trump or how he says it, trump's got more staying power than many of the experts predicted. time for the "hardball" round table.
all of you in order starting with ken, it seems to me there is something wrong with a party when they can't pick a leader. definition of a party is after all the argument and debating and competition, you agree to at least agree you're a party, name a leader and move on. that's not happening with congress and house of representatives trying to find a speaker. certainly not happening with the republican establishment. none of the elected officials are in double digits. what's going on with the republican party itself? >> certainly the presidential level you would expect there to be a debate over the vision of the party and the course of the party. at the congressional level, i think it's more telling that they can't figure out that they can't get behind someone to get things done. they're already in office. they won this majority in 2010 in the house and 2014 in the senate. they are in position to -- they own it to some extent.
when they are unable to elect a leader, it's because they are unable to agree on a course and it reflects on them at the presidential level. there is more of a debate and it's more understandable they be looking for a vision for the future. it's more a function of pure dysfunction. >> i think it's existential, do you agree? it's whether the party exists. is there anything in common with, let's say donald trump and jeb bush? i can't find it out. one is a low-energy guy who represents the establishment. he is erasing the guy. your thoughts. >> absolute opposition to barack obama and hillary clinton seems to be about the only thing that does bring them together. the one thing that unites the party is the idea of opposition being the party of no. they can't agree on what's a win these days. is xm bank taking that down? is that a win or loss? some republicans would say it's a win. others say it's a loss. business republicans consider one thing a win.
fiscal conservatives think it's a loss. until you figure out your platform and let alone who your leaders are, it's a real problem for the party. >> i think this is the problem. knights of columbus can pick a grand knight. a bowling team can pick a captain. definition of a team, you pick a leader. if you can't pick a leader to represent all of you, how can you argue you're the same team? i think it's gotten to that point with the republican party. they can imagine with a speaker of the house would look like except somebody who will say yes to every crazy idea in the world and have the whole place in chaos. >> that's the problem. the knights of columbus, there is somebody who wants to run the knights of columbus. bowling team, somebody wants to be the captain. there is no sane person right now who wants to be speaker of the house. i don't blame them. it's a career-ending and life-shortening job the way it's now structured.
you've got 42 people in the freedom caucus who are making these demands that will make the job utterly impossible. we are going to shut down the government unless we defund planned parenthood, defund obamacare and immigration executive orders. nobody remotely in contention to have that speaker job wants to make that deal and make that promise to these people. it's untenable. >> those people are going home to a grassroots tea party crowd out there saying, no more deals, right? they are responding to the grassroots as they know them. >> that's right. it's a function of the power and money migrating after citizens united and power of the outside groups and billionaires who fund them. the outside groups don't have the same responsibility or accountability where they have to make deals and keep the
government running or they'll be answerable to the voters. they are only answerable to the folks willing to write the checks. we have seen no diminishment in their willingness to write these checks. >> i want to talk to you about biden, is he in? does anybody want to play this game? we'll be right back. biden really does want to play. i think paul ryan doesn't want it. biden is the talk of the street here in vegas. on the strip. this is "hardball," the place for politics live from vegas. sure! i offer multi-car, safe driver, and so many other discounts that people think i'm a big deal. and boy, are they right. ladies, i can share hundreds in savings with all of you! just visit progressive.com today. but right now, it's choosing time.
we're back with the "hardball" round table. ken, jay, and michael. vice president joe biden spent the weekend at home in delaware with his family. you can see him here casually dressed in a local cross-country meet on saturday not far from his house. but the clock is ticking, of course, for joe biden and some are saying it's time for the vice president to put up or shut up about a possible run for president. that's putting it brutal but it's the way people think these days. with the first democratic debate of course under way tomorrow night biden could decide whether to mount a third bid for the white house as early as wednesday. that's my thinking. let me go to ken and michael and jay. it seems to me that biden will wait and watch tomorrow night. i think that's logical. he's waited long enough. and if it looks like bernie sanders comes across like victor lazlo, the hero of "casablanca" again the way he's been coming across so far, as the superman of the left, the good guy, and hillary has a hard time sort of getting it together tomorrow night against him because she doesn't want to attack him,
there will appear to be a problem in the middle. will biden then jump? that's my whole premise tonight. michael tomasky, your thoughts. >> well, yeah, that's going to be a factor. i think another factor might be the way this benghazi committee story has been turning over the last few days. because it's just been a disastrous few days for that committee and for the republicans, which means it's been a pretty good few days for hillary clinton. so if the worm is turning on that one, then maybe clinton is going to get out of the woods and maybe that affects the way biden thinks about this a little bit. i don't know. but i do agree with your premise and your lead-in, chris, that the clock's ticking fast. i think he's got about a week. >> i think the committee's going to have another couple shots during the fall. you don't quit when you're behind. they're going to wait and wait and try to troll for something and when they get something they'll declare victory, whatever it is. your thoughts. anyway, back to biden. when does he make his move? >> i think it's too late for biden. i think biden missed his window. i think he has neither the grassroots energy of a bernie sanders that's really driving the sanders campaign from an
economic populist standpoint nor does he have the organizing ability and infrastructure that hillary clinton has. >> you dent want him to run? >> i'm not saying -- he certainly has a right -- >> you sound like you don't want him to run. >> there's no avenue for. >> you're saying -- >> there's no avenue for him. he missed the window to build the infrastructure to be required to challenge hillary clinton and he doesn't have the grassroots sort of organic base that bernie sanders has. >> okay. jay, thank you. your last thought. last thought from you about this whether he's going to make the move. i think he will. i think he wants to. i think there is an opening if hillary has a bad night tomorrow night. she could have a great night tomorrow night. >> so the question is if he doesn't do it what's his other option? what does he do if he doesn't run? he just sort of fades into obscurity? >> thank you. that's how i think too. >> it's the interesting choice. >> you're so smart. that's how i think. people have to have options. i know everybody's so cosmic about this. it's about a career plan.
it's gotten squarer. brighter. bigger. it's gotten thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. let me finish tonight with the tricky matter of joe biden. without any reference, explicit or otherwise, to the declared candidates, let me say something useful. if he wants to run, he should. the reasons are buried not in the country but in him. in the man joe biden is.
i remember way back when he ran for the united states senate. it was in 1972. i remember seeing the giant billboard of joe biden on the way to rehoboth beach where i was sharing a summer place with some other people. i remember passing that billboard looking up at this young guy and thinking, this fella doesn't have a chance. he's wasting our time. the republican incumbent, a veteran who'd been both congressman and governor before and had won re-election before to the u.s. senate, was not going to get beaten by some democrat i'd never heard of. he certainly wasn't going to get beaten in 1972, the year george mcgovern was going to get killed in the nixon landslide. of this i was certain. well, a month or so before the election i began to get word from a pollster friend of mine about the biden campaign, how he was really doing something, how he may pull the upset of the year. well, he did. he beat the unbeatable incumbent. not only that, but he did it cleanly with no hard feelings. the day after the election the two of them, winner and closer, biden and the guy he beat, followed delaware tradition and traveled around the state together.
as i said, no hard feelings. joe, and this isn't hard to figure given how it all started, may have decided, elected to the senate at 29 and a tragedy in his family that came so quickly, that his life lay in hands greater than his own. he may have decided that he should leave himself in those hands. well, he ran for president a couple of times, ended up being selected and then elected vice president and he never hurt anyone, by the way. all the hazard he's walked into he's also walked right out of. he's made goofy statements, he's bragged totally off the top, he's been caught reading somebody else's biography, a brit's biography at that, and yet i've noticed something. he's never hurt anybody with any of this. why? because joe biden's a good guy. he may be too game and have ambitions that he's had trouble catching up with, but one thing he's not. he's not a guy who believes the ends justify the means. he's not someone who goes out to win by hurting other people. his gaffes, if they've had any lasting impact, have done their damage only to him. so i say joe, if you feel you've
got it in you, if you'll die not having given it one more college try, go for it. the democratic party can surely stand it. the country may get something good out of it. it may even, though it's a long shot, get you. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> i don't think he'll end up being president of the united states. >> the rise of the anti-policy politician. >> make you can prove me wrong but i don't think you're a friend to women. >> i knew i shouldn't have picked her. >> reporter: tonight how donald trump. and ben carson continue to defy political gravity. >> is that just hyperbole to use nazi analogies? >> it's not hyperbole at all. >> then more proof of a plot to stop hillary. >> it's a lie. >> republicans respond to the latest bombshell about the benghazi committee. and with a break in case of biden podium at the ready, the democrats get loose.